The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a pre-trial application challenging the constitutional validity of section 184.1 of the Criminal Code, which permits state agents to intercept private communications to prevent bodily harm.
During an undercover drug purchase, the police used an Officer Protection Device to monitor, but not record, the conversation between the undercover officer and the applicant.
The applicant argued that the failure to record the conversation and the statutory requirement to destroy such recordings violated his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.
The court dismissed the application, finding that section 184.1 contains adequate safeguards and strikes an appropriate balance between state interests and individual privacy rights, rendering it constitutionally valid.
